Are Sex Effects on Ethical Decision-Making Fake or Real? A Meta-Analysis on the Contaminating Role of Social Desirability Response Bias

Abstract

A meta-analysis of 143 studies was conducted to explore how the social desirability response bias may influence sex effects on ratings on measures of ethical decision-making. Women rated themselves as more ethical than did men; however, this sex effect on ethical decision-making was no longer significant when social desirability response bias was controlled. The indirect questioning approach was compared with the direct measurement approach for effectiveness in controlling social desirability response bias. The indirect questioning approach was found to be more effective.

Keywords

Ethical business behavior decision-making social desirability sex effects

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdolmohammadi

M. J.

Read

W. J.

Scarbrough

D. P.

(2003) Does selection-socialization help to explain accountants’ weak ethical reasoning? Journal of Business Ethics 42(1): 71–81.

Adkins, C. P. (2009). Is empathy the missing link in teaching business ethics? A course-based educational intervention with undergraduate business students (PhD Thesis). The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Ariail

D. L.

Abdolmohammadi

M. J.

Smith

L. M.

(2012) Ethical predisposition of certified public accountants: A study of gender differences. In: Jeffrey

(ed.) Research on professional responsibility and ethics in accounting Vol 16, Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 29–56.

Bernardi

R. A.

(2006) Associations between Hofstede’s cultural constructs and social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics 65(1): 43–53.

Borenstein

Hedges

L. V.

Higgins

J. P. T.

Rothstein

H. R.

(2009) Introduction to meta-analysis, Chichester, England: Wiley.

Borkowski

S. C.

UgrasSource

Y. J.

(1998) Business students and ethics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 17(11): 1117–1127.

Card

N. A.

(2011) Applied meta-analysis for social science research, New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Chan

Leung

(2006) The effects of accounting students’ ethical reasoning and personal factors on their ethical sensitivity. Managerial Auditing Journal 21(4): 436–457.

Chung

Monroe

G. S.

(2003) Exploring social desirability bias. Journal of Business Ethics 44(4): 291–302.

10.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, MI: Routledge.

11.

Cohen

J. R.

Pant

L. W.

(1998) The effect of gender and academic discipline diversity on the ethical evaluations, ethical intentions and ethical orientation of potential public accounting recruits. Accounting Horizons 12(3): 250–270.

12.

Cohen

Pant

Sharp

(1993) A validation and extension of a multidimensional ethics scale. Journal of Business Ethics 12(1): 13–26.

13.

Cohen

J. R.

Pant

L. W.

Sharp

D. J.

(2001) An examination of differences in ethical decision-making between Canadian business students and accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics 30(4): 319–336.

14.

Craft

J. L.

(2013) A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–2011. Journal of Business Ethics 117(2): 221–259.

15.

Crowne

D. P.

Marlowe

(1960) A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology 24(4): 349–354.

16.

Dalton

Ortegren

(2011) Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics 103(1): 73–93.

17.

Dalton

D. R.

Wimbush

J. C.

Daily

C. M.

(1994) Using the unmatched count technique (UCT) to estimate base rates for sensitive behavior. Personnel Psychology 47(4): 817–829.

18.

Decker

W. H.

Calo

T. J.

(2007) Observers’ impressions of unethical persons and whistleblowers. Journal of Business Ethics 76(3): 309–318.

19.

Doty

Tomkiewicz

Bass

(2005) Sex differences in motivational traits and ethical decision making among graduating accounting majors. College Student Journal 39(4): 817–826.

20.

Eagly

A. H.

(1987) Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

21.

Fernandes

M. F.

Randall

D. M.

(1992) The nature of social desirability response effects in ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly 2(2): 183–205.

22.

Ferrando

P. J.

Lorenzo-Seva

Chico

(2009) A general factoranalytic procedure for assessing response bias in questionnaire measures. Structural Equation Modeling 16: 364–381.

23.

Fisher

R. J.

(1993) Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research 20(2): 303–315.

24.

Fisher, R. J., & Tellis, G. J. (1998). Removing social desirability bias with indirect questioning: is the cure worse than the disease? Paper presented at the Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT.

25.

Ford

R. C.

Richardson

W. D.

(1994) Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics 13(3): 205–221.

26.

Franke

G. R.

Crown

D. F.

Spake

D. F.

(1997) Gender differences in ethical perceptions of business practices: A social role theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(6): 920–934.

27.

Fritzsche

D. J.

(2005) Business ethics: A global and managerial perspective, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

28.

Geiger

M. A.

O’Connell

(2000) An examination of using surrogate measures to assess social desirability response bias. Research on Accounting Ethics 6: 107–127.

29.

Gilligan

(1982) In a different voice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

30.

Greenman, C. S. (2012). Marital status, religiosity, and experience as a predictor of ethical awareness among accounting professionals (PhD Thesis). Northcentral University, Scottsdale, AZ.

31.

Herington

Weaven

(2008) Improving consistency for DIT results using cluster analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 80(3): 499–514.

32.

Hofstede

G. H.

(2001) Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

33.

Huffcutt

A. I.

Arthur

Jr. (1995) Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology 80(2): 327–334.

34.

Jaffee

Hyde

J. S.

(2000) Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 126(5): 703–726.

35.

Jones

T. M.

(1991) Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contigent model. Academy of Management Review 16(2): 366–395.

36.

Jones

G. E.

Kavanagh

M. J.

(1996) An experimental examination of the effects of individual and situational factors on unethical behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics 15(5): 511–523.

37.

Jong

M. G. D.

Pieters

Fox

J.-P.

(2010) Reducing social desirability bias through item randomized response: An application to measure underreported desires. Journal of Marketing Research 47(1): 14–27.

38.

Joseph

Berry

Deshpande

S. P.

(2009) Impact of emotional intelligence and other factors on perception of ethical behavior of peers. Journal of Business Ethics 89(4): 539–546.

39.

Kam

(2013) Probing item social desirability by correlating personality items with balanced inventory of desirable responding (BIDR): A validity examination. Personality and Individual Differences 54(3): 513–518.

40.

Kish-Gephart

J. J.

Harrison

D. A.

Treviño

L. K.

(2010) Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(1): 1–31.

41.

Kracher

Chatterjee

Lundquist

A. R.

(2002) Factors related to the cognitive moral development of business students and business professionals in India and the United States: Nationality, education, sex and gender. Journal of Business Ethics 35(4): 255–268.

42.

Krambia-Kapardis

Zopiatis

(2008) Uncharted territory: Investigating individual business ethics in Cyprus. Business Ethics: A European Review 17(2): 138–148.

43.

Lehnert

Park

Y.-h.

Singh

(2015) Research note and review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: Boundary conditions and extensions. Journal of Business Ethics 121(1): 195–219.

44.

Loe

T. W.

Ferrell

Mansfield

(2000) A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics 25(3): 185–204.

45.

Marques

P. A.

Azevedo-Pereira

(2009) Ethical ideology and ethical judgments in the Portuguese accounting profession. Journal of Business Ethics 86(2): 227–242.

46.

Morris

S. A.

McDonald

R. A.

(1995) The role of moral intensity in moral judgments: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics 14(9): 715–726.

47.

Nederhof

A. J.

(1985) Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology 15(3): 263–280.

48.

O’Fallon

M. J.

Butterfield

K. D.

(2005) A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics 59(4): 375–413.

49.

Pan

Sparks

J. R.

(2012) Predictors, consequence, and measurement of ethical judgments: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research 65(1): 84–91.

50.

Paulhus

D. L.

(1986) Self-deception and impression management in test responses. In: Angleitner

Wiggins

J. S.

(eds) Personality assessment via questionnaires, Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 143–165.

51.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2002) Social desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In: Braun

H. I.

Jackson

D. N.

Wiley

D. E.

(eds) The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

52.

Peterson

(2004) Perceived leader integrity and ethical intentions of subordinates. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 25(1): 7–23.

53.

Randall

D. M.

Fernandes

M. F.

(1991) The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics 10(11): 805–817.

54.

Randall

D. M.

Gibson

A. M.

(1990) Methodology in business ethics research: A review and critical assessment. Journal of Business Ethics 9(6): 457–471.

55.

Rest

J. R.

(1986) Moral development: Advances in research and theory, New York, NY: Praeger.

56.

Rosenthal

(1991) Meta-analytic procedures for social research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

57.

Rossi

P. H.

Wright

J. D.

Anderson

A. B.

(1983) Handbook of survey research, Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

58.

Schmitt

M. J.

Steyer

(1993) A latent state-trait model (not only) for social desirability. Personality and Individual Differences 14(4): 519–529.

59.

Schmidt

(2008) Meta-analysis: A constantly evolving research integrational tool. Organizational Research Methods 11(1): 96–113.

60.

Schoderbek

P. P.

Deshpande

S. P.

(1996) Impression management, overclaiming, and perceived unethical conduct: The role of male and female managers. Journal of Business Ethics 15(4): 409–414.

61.

Serwinek

P. J.

(1992) Demographic & related differences in ethical views among small businesses. Journal of Business Ethics 11(7): 555–566.

62.

Sherwood

G. G.

(1981) Self-serving biases in person perception: A reexamination of projection as a mechanism of defense. Psychological Bulletin 90: 445–459.

63.

Sidani

Zbib

Rawwas

Moussawer

(2009) Gender, age, and ethical sensitivity: The case of Lebanese workers. Gender in Management: An International Journal 24(3): 211–227.

64.

Street

V. L.

(2006) The effects of escalating commitment on ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics 64(4): 1153–1161.

65.

Treviño

L. K.

(1986) Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review 11(3): 601–617.

66.

Vigil-Colet

Lorenzo-Seva

Morales-Vives

(2015) The effects of ageing on self-reported aggression measures are partly explained by response bias. Psicothema 27(3): 209–215.

67.

Vigil-Colet

Morales-Vives

Lorenzo-Seva

(2013) How social desirability and acquiescence affect the age-personality relationship. Psicothema 25(3): 342–348.

68.

You

Maeda

Bebeau

M. J.

(2011) Gender differences in moral sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Ethics & Behavior 21(4): 263–282.

69.

Zerbe

W. J.

Paulhus

D. L.

(1987) Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review 12(2): 250–264.